NEW! By Barry Rubin

“There have been many hundreds of books for and against Israel but no volume presenting the essential information about its domestic politics, its society, as well as its cultural life and its economy. This gap has now been filled.”—Walter Laqueur, author of A History of Zionism

"[An] essential resource for readers interested in learning the truth about the Zionist project in the 20th and 21st centuries."—Sol Stern, Commentary

“Offering in-depth perspectives with encyclopedic breadth on the makeup of the Jewish state, focusing only briefly on Israel's struggle for self-preservation. The section "History" provides a masterful summary of Israel's past from its socialist beginnings before independence to the modern struggles with the Iranian regime. . . .”—Publishers Weekly

“A well-written portrait of a vibrant nation at the center of turmoil in the region.”—Jay Freeman, Booklist

"It is indeed just a starting point, but Israel: An Introduction, if disseminated among our universities to the extent it deserves, will at least allow students of the Middle East and of Jewish history to start off on the right foot. A glimpse into the real Israel may do more for the future of U.S.-Israeli relations than any amount of rhetoric ever could."—Daniel Perez, Jewish Voice New York

Written by a leading historian of the Middle East, Israel is organized around six major themes: land and people, history, society, politics, economics, and culture. The only available volume to offer such a complete account, this book is written for general readers and students who may have little background knowledge of this nation or its rich culture.

About Me

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.

Recent Rubin Reports

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

A reader has remarked that America seems so polarized, so deadlocked that he finds it hard to believe that the United States can return quickly (ever?) into being a great power, in the sense that is usually defined. Another reader thinks that the US has objectively declined in economic and, well, civilizational terms to the point that it cannot make a comeback.

My response is that while there are certainly objective factors, the solution is real willpower and good policies. Never forget that in a democracy a heck of a lot is changed by merely electing a different person to lead the country. If either Hillary Clinton or John McCain had been elected we probably wouldn't be having any of these conversations over how terrible is the foreign policy, much less all the domestic issues. That doesn't mean everything would be perfect--not by a long-shot and especially given economic woes--but the train wouldn't have gone so far off the tracks.

Of course, there are deeper, longer-term factors involved but that's why elections are so important: they decide who is going to deal with the problems and how they should do so.

Remember, too, that the loudest voices and activists on both sides--much less both extremes--are minorities. The mass of the people is able to move from one side to the other as they think appropriate and as they are persuaded by experience and arguments.

Also remember that the US has been through this kind of thing before. The Vietnam syndrome existed when reaction against the war there made America reluctant to engage internationally. But then there was a pendulum swing. Jimmy Carter was followed by Ronald Reagan. The radical 1960s (most accurately, 1966-1972) were followed by big-hair and discos in the 1970s. George W. Bush was followed by Barack Obama. And so on.

The same applies to the other contenders for international leadership. The Soviet Union, which challenged America for almost half a century, is no more. Japan, an economic though not a strategic power, has fallen by the wayside. Europe, which was supposed to eclipse the United States, is in serious trouble and sabotaging its own development. China and India have a very long way to go with a huge number of things that could go wrong along the way.

America is the country of rapid change and new beginnings, over and over again.

Please be subscriber 17,985 (and daily reader 19,985.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

In all the excitement over the Wikileaks story, I want to remind people that there's another big story being ignored. You will be reading about it in the mass media in two or three months.

The Obama Administration has messed up its attempts to get Israel-Palestinian negotiations going. The whole misplaced emphasis on a freeze of construction on settlements--something this government initiated--continues to put a freeze on talks. The presentation of the proposed three-month-long freeze to Israel was done so badly that nobody is quite sure what's in it.

U.S. policy on the issue has lost its way. Looking back over what is now almost the first two years of the Obama Administration, one finds an unbroken record of bungling here. I wouldn't say that irreparable harm has been done to the region or to U.S.-Israel relations, precisely because there was no chance of great progress on the peace process any way and nothing much has actually happened despite all the rhetoric. But a huge amount of U.S. prestige, time, and resources have been squandered.

Here's a quiz for you: What is the one factor regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict that the Obama Administration has changed and which is disastrous? [See end of article for the answer.]

If you haven't read it yet, you might want to look at my analysis of this issue HERE.

Speaking about the Wikileaks story, it is amusing to see how the champions of the 1980s' conventional wisdom--that everything in the Middle East is about the Arab-Israel conflict and not about Islamism versus nationalism, and Iran-Syria versus the Arab states--are telling people to ignore that man behind the curtain.

One such person remarked that the Arab rulers didn't say nice things about Israel in the many meetings described in the leaks. That's true. But the point is that they didn't say nasty things about Israel either and, generally, spoke of it as a normal regional power.

Others have pointed out one or two instances where Arab leaders, in passing, gave lip service to the notion that the best way to fight Iran and Islamism was to have an Israel-Palestinian peace. That's true. But the point is that hardly anyone said that and when they did they passed over it briefly. When the Emir of Qatar tells Senator John Kerry that Israeli can’t be blamed for mistrusting Arabs, because “the Israelis have been 'under threat' for a long time,” that qualifies as a breakthrough statement.

Here's the best one-sentence summary I've seen, from Lee Smith, author of The Strong Horse:

"What comes through most strongly from the Wikileaks documents, however, is that U.S. Middle East policy is premised on a web of self-justifying fictions that are flatly contradicted by the assessments of American diplomats and allies in the region."

I read one distinguished British journalist who wrote--no exaggeration--that this shouldn't distract us from seeing that the real problem is that the US government--that's the Obama administration, mind you--is dominated by a right-wing Zionist cabal (no kidding). A USA Today article said the leaks proved that an Israel-Palestinian peace settlement would help get Arab support on Iran, etc.

The admirable Jeffrey Goldberg points out that the leaks should also put an end to the exaggerated (sometimes crazed) talk of the all-powerful Israel lobby since Israel, even with agreement from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab governments, couldn't get the United States to act more toughly against Iran.

Of course, the people who hold to this false and outdated image of the Middle East don't want to admit we are right so they keep talking about details, atmospherics, etc., without pointing out the conclusions to be drawn from this material. BUT this is one more step in turning the tide and more and more people are starting to question the conventional wisdom.

Another point is this: As I've been saying, the problem is in the White House more than in the State Department. A lot of the reporting is good and America's allies are telling it the truth. But this is not being reflected in top-level policy decisions and strategies.

Answer to Question: By pressuring Israel to end high-level sanctions on the Gaza Strip and greatly increasing its own aid, the U.S. government has in effect accepted long-term Hamas rule there, making peace even harder to achieve and strengthening the Iran-Syria axis.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Please be subscriber 17,956 (and daily reader 19,956.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

The Wikileaks could be a beneficial revelation, a turning point, changing Western perceptions of the Middle East.

After all, only the leak of U.S. secret documents is forcing--finally!--the mass media to recognize that its entire model of the Middle East has been wrong. For years, we have been told that the region revolves around the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And that was to some extent true up through the end of the 1980s. But now the Middle East revolves around the battle between Islamists and nationalists, and especially between the Iran-led bloc (Iran, Syria, Hizballah, Hamas, Iraqi insurgents, the government that rules Turkey) and most of the other countries.

Here's how the New York Times put it in an article:

"The cables reveal how Iran’s ascent has unified Israel and many longtime Arab adversaries — notably the Saudis — in a common cause. Publicly, these Arab states held their tongues, for fear of a domestic uproar and the retributions of a powerful neighbor. Privately, they clamored for strong action — by someone else.

"If they seemed obsessed with Iran, though, they also seemed deeply conflicted about how to deal with it — with diplomacy, covert action or force. In one typical cable, a senior Omani military officer is described as unable to decide what is worse: `A strike against Iran’s nuclear capability and the resulting turmoil it would cause in the Gulf, or inaction and having to live with a nuclear-capable Iran.'”

Here's what Raymond Bonner, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, wrote on this subject:

"Sure, we knew that Middle East governments were concerned about Iran. But we didn't know to what degree. The cumulative impact of these cables is profound.... ...This the same chilling language, which the American public is accustomed to hearing from hardline [on Iran] Israeli officials. Hearing it expressed by Muslim leaders in the Middle East might now have a profound effect on American public opinion."

And that's not all. Up to now, the Western media has overwhelmingly whitewashed the Turkish regime as just a bunch of democratic-minded moderates. The leaks show that they are better understood to be Islamists, though that should have already been apparent.

Up until now, the Obama Administration has continued to engage with Syria, supposedly trying to moderate it and pull it away from Iran--both futile, indeed counterproductive, enterprises. The leaks show Syria's radicalism, close links with Tehran, and how it has lied to the U.S. government making the Obama Administration look foolish. Even Egyptian President Husni Mubarak warned the United States that the Syrian regime could not be trusted.

And here's my summary of some of the most important revelations--with links.

Could this possibly be a turning point in persuading Western governments, the media, and academia to deal with reality?

Now, if you want to understand this Middle East-- and the tasks for the U.S. government in dealing with this kind of Middle East--I plead with you to read my article "U.S. Middle East Policy: Too Many Challenges and yet a Single Theme."

Note 1: Please keep in mind that the leaks consist of two totally different parts.

--Intelligence materials are direct from sources and may be totally inaccurate. A report saying that an Iranian leader has cancer, for example, doesn't mean it is true but merely what some sources are saying.

--Reports on meetings and discussions are accurate, reflecting policy positions of officials.

Note 2: The concept of two cheers--instead of three--means that something has done some good even though one doesn't approve of it completely.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Please be subscriber 17,956 (and daily reader 19,956.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

Please forgive me for saying this, but what really amazed me in reading the Wikileaks was how thoroughly they proved points I’ve been making for years. I wouldn’t have had the nerve to say that except that readers have been telling me the same thing.

1. Iran steadily smuggled arms to Hizballah using various means including in ambulances and medical vehicles during the 2006 war. This violates the laws of war. At times, the media has condemned Israel for attacking ambulances though it showed Hamas was also using such vehicles for military and arms-smuggling operations. Moreover, the postwar UN force proved consistently ineffective in stopping smuggling while the U.S. government did not denounce Iran, Syria, and Hizballah for breaking the ceasefire arrangements.

2. Israeli leaders have repeatedly made clear in diplomatic discussions their acceptance of a two-state solution but warned that the Palestinian leadership sought Israel’s destruction.

3. Arab states have constantly been warning the United States about the threat from Iran as their highest priority, even urging the United States to attack Iran itself. Note that Arab leaders did not condition their oppositon to Iran or call for a U.S. attack on settling the Arab-Israeli or Israel-Palestinian conflicts. This is contrary to what Administration officials, academia, and parts of the mass media who argue these issues are basically linked and that is why the conflicts must be "solved" before doing much else. As I've told you, the Arab regimes worry first and foremost about Iran and have greatly downgraded their interest in the conflict or antagonism toward Israel.

Here's what Raymond Bonner, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, wrote on this subject:

"Sure, we knew that Middle East governments were concerned about Iran. But we didn't know to what degree. The cumulative impact of these cables is profound.... ...This the same chilling language, which the American public is accustomed to hearing from hardline Israeli officials. Hearing it expressed by Muslim leaders in the Middle East might now have a profound effect on American public opinion."

5. One week after President Bashar al-Asad promised a top State Department official that he would not send “new” arms to Hizballah, the United States complained that it had information that Syria was providing increasingly sophisticated weapons to the group. Yet the U.S. government did not take strong action and continues its ill-fated engagement with Damascus .

(Reminds me of how Bashar promised the Bush Administration that he would stop buying oil from Iran in violation of UN sanctions but continued doing so; and how Yasir Arafat promised that he had nothing to do with terrorism and arms smuggling from Iran and then was shown to have lied. Is there a pattern here?)

6. Israel has been warning the United States about how Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would destabilize the region, not just create a danger of an Iranian attack on Israel.

7. U.S. Officials in Turkey think that the current government is in fact an Islamist one, though the U.S. government (and media) keeps insisting it is some kind of democratic-reform-minded centrist regime.

8. The U.S. government ignored repeated pleas from Israel to press Egypt to block smuggling of military equipment into the Gaza Strip.

US Cables on Iran: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/us-embassy-cables-the-documents+iran

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Please be subscriber 17,956 (and daily reader 19,956.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

While the outcome still isn’t clear, it seems that a new example of failure and humiliation is unfolding for the Obama Administration’s Middle East policy.

It appears increasingly unlikely that the president’s high-profile effort to restart Israel-Palestinian talks will succeed during the remainder of 2010 or even well beyond that time.

This Administration has had a very clear idea of what it wanted to achieve:

1. A comprehensive Israel-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli peace.

2. Getting rid of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the belief that this will reduce terrorism and strengthen US power in region and US interests.

3. Getting rid of the conflict to get Arab support on Iraq, Iran, and Aghanistan.

The embarrassment is taking place due to faulty assumptions about these goals and how to achieve them:

--That a high-profile effort would serve U.S. interests. By showing American engagement on the issue, the Administration thought it would please Arab and Muslim-majority countries so as to gain their support on other issues. This didn’t work.

--That, at best, a high-profile campaign would be likely to succeed in bringing rapid progress toward comprehensive peace. That obviously isn’t working.

--That , at minimum, they could at least get the two sides to sit down to pretend talks where nothing actually happened but at least it could be portrayed as a diplomatic achievement. Even that isn’t working and that's really embarrassing.

Part of the problem is due to the Administration’s additional wrong assumption that the Palestinians are eager to negotiate and get a state plus the belief that the current Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership could deliver a deal. In fact, both of these ideas are wrong, too. The PA leadership can't--and doesn't want to--deliver even on holding talks that go nowhere.

Most of the Palestinian leadership and the masses, too, are still locked into the belief that a combination of struggle and intransigence will bring them total victory some day in wiping Israel off the map. And even though they are more moderate than this, neither “President” Mahmoud Abbas nor Prime Minister Salam Fayyad are strong or determined enough even to attempt to change that orientation.

Another part of the problem is the Administration’s mistaken view that it could pressure or bribe Israel and the PA into doing what it wants. Yet since neither side has faith in the Obama Administration, both know that it’s weak, and Israel has seen that Washington doesn’t keep commitments, their incentive for cooperation is reduced. In the PA’s case at least, the United States doesn’t even put on any pressure or criticism. In Israel's case the Administration has not put on the level of pressure that its more extreme officials (and outside supporters) would like to see, though that wouldn't work either.

But even that’s not all. There’s every indication that the Administration has incompetently handled the actual negotiations about holding negotiationsy. It focused on getting Israeli concessions without firming up the PA side, thus allowing the PA to demand more. The offer to Israel was presented in a confused manner and it still isn’t clear what precisely is to be given in exchange for a three-month construction freeze.

Moreover, part of the package that led people to say that it was so "generous" that Israel was being “bribed” seems to consist of things that the United States has always provided, like support in the UN or maintaining Israel’s strategic advantage over its enemies.

The whole thing has turned into a mess and this isn’t the first time that’s happened in Obama policy on the issue. To cite just four examples, there was:

--The raising of the construction freeze idea in the first place;

--The position that promises made by the Bush Administration would not be fulfilled by his successor;

--Praising Israel for a construction freeze that didn’t include Jerusalem and then screaming when Israel fulfilled the agreed conditions;

--And announcing last year that intensive Israel-PA negotiations would begin in two months when no such agreement had been made by the PA.

Yet even that’s not all. Why did the administration seek a three-month freeze (originally a two-month freeze) at all? What was the purpose of this clearly useless goal? After all, even if the Administration obtained the freeze there would only have been twelve weeks of stagnant conversation—purchased by the United States at a high price—followed by the break-down of the talks. As an election ploy the idea at least made sense but if that was the motive the whole frantic exercise is now useless.

So far the Obama Administration has achieved a remarkable record of failure on this issue. It is, of course, understandable that the U.S. government was unable to solve the long-standing conflict--though making over-optimistic claims over what might be achieved was a self-inflicted wound--but it actually succeeding in moving the diplomatic process backwards.

Has the Obama done much harm regarding Israel-Palestinian issues? Directly, not so much since there was never much chance for dramatic progress. Yet for the Obama Administration's own reputation and credibility in the region this has been disastrous. Finally and worst of all, it isn’t clear that the current government has learned anything from the experience.

The above article could be taken as a highly critical bashing of the Obama Administration. But the sad thing is that it is totally accurate albeit not--in order to save time and to promote clarity--cloaked in bland language.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Please be subscriber 17,947 (and daily reader 19,947.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

What are the United States and the world going to do about an act of aggression by North Korea on South Korea, the deliberate unprovoked firing of mortars at civilians? And what are the lessons of this situation for other world problems?

First, nobody is going to do anything real in response to this attack. Indeed, the South Koreans are lucky that they aren’t being investigated and condemned for something or other.

That last remark, of course, was a sarcastic reference to Israel’s treatment though it also applies to other cases, for example the Russian attack on Georgia; the way the UN backed down in Lebanon to Syria and Hizballah pushing around the UN peacekeeping force; Iran’s covert warfare against American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; Pakistan openly sponsoring terrorism against India while India is unable to retaliate; and other recent cases.

If countries not only get away with aggression but their victims are blamed if they retaliate or defend themselves, the level of aggression in the world will rise. If aggression is perceived as low-cost and victorious the level of aggression in the world will rise.

Until recently, these points were regarded as obvious principles of international affairs that would have been repeated in every university course and the editorial pages of all major newspapers.

So, should the United States do something dramatic and punish North Korea? This leads to the second principle. If the United States were to do so, a full-scale war would erupt. Understandably, the West is not prepared for such an outcome and is unwilling to pay such a price. American forces are already tied up in other missions. The North Koreans know this.

Here is lesson two:

If an ideological, ambitious dictatorship knows that by threatening war and conflict, by using military force, or threats, or terrorism, it can get whatever it wants then it will do so.

How does a country counter this? The first line of defense is deterrence and credibility. These two concepts mean your enemies know that you are strong enough to defeat them and have the will to do so. They should refrain from aggression or pressure or doing nasty things to your interests or they will be very sorry.

Equally, your friends know that you have the strength and will to defend them. So they will want to be your friends and they will stand up for themselves rather than surrendering or appeasing your mutual enemies.

Hence, lesson three:

If by apology, excessive concessions, breaking promises to friends, and displays of weakness a country gives up its own deterrence and credibility that country (and its friends) will be in great danger.

During the nineteenth century, great powers went around the world with gunboats and other forces. They seized countries and territories. If one of their citizens was molested they would have their fleet bombard the enemy capital. This was called imperialism.

In the twenty-first century, people are still wrapped up in thinking about that framework, in apologizing for such behavior, in trying to be good global citizens.

Meanwhile, though, there are now small and medium powers that go around their region with money, arms’ supplies, covert operations, ideology, and terrorism. They have endless grievances. Refusing to make peace or deals that would bring stability, they use their willingness to fight and die to blackmail their opponents; they even use their “race” and religion to blackmail their opponents.

In effect, they transmit the message: I’m tough, I’m “crazy” in your terms. I’m not afraid to die. You touch me and I’ll blow your head off. Make my day, punk.

Thus, lesson four:

European imperialism was like a boxing match in which a much bigger fighter beat up a little guy. What’s going on today is like a judo match in which a much smaller fighter beats up a bigger guy who doesn’t know how to defend himself or is unwilling to do so.

Of course, no discussion of the situation would be complete without including the element of nuclear weapons. Hence lesson four:

If a state has nuclear weapons and people think it is willing to use them then that country can do whatever it wants.

This is the true point of Iran getting nuclear weapons: not to fire them off at the first opportunity (though this is possible) but to make itself invulnerable. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the world chased it out. Whatever Iran does once it has nuclear weapons, nobody will do anything about it.

I call this the Defensive Umbrella for Aggression. Iran’s regime will get nuclear weapons and ever after it can do pretty much whatever it wants without concern of retaliation from the United States or any coalition of powers.

Finally, I’ve been to South Korea and met with top officials there. The main conclusion from that visit was the intense frustration of people who have not been allowed to defend themselves. The United States controls the intelligence information South Korea receives, the weapons it can have, and the actions it can take in self-defense.

America does have a right to be involved in these decisions since it guarantees South Korea’s existence and provides thousands of troops to defend it. The United States does not want a war to erupt on the Korean peninsula that would drag it into involvement. This is understandable. Yet if the South Koreans had more autonomy earlier perhaps things wouldn’t have reached this point.

So this is one more lesson:

The United States and Europe must help their local allies to defend themselves, not always tie their hands and restrict their ability to do so.

Like other contemporary issues and crises, the events in Korea have generated massive discussions and coverage. Yet also, as in these other cases, the inability to learn the most basic lessons from such developments makes it inevitable for more—and even worse—things to happen.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Please be subscriber 17,941 (and daily reader 19,941.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

It should be getting pretty hard even for Western leaders to ignore the Turkish regime's growing alliance with their enemies. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's visit to Lebanon included a very dangerous statement that must not go unnoticed.

Lebanon, of course, is now a virtual satellite of Iran, another strategic factor Western countries and media don't seem to be comprehending. This relationship is symbolized by the recent exchange of visits by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri.

Here's what Erdoğan said that crossed the line into something new and extremely dangerous: if Israel attacked Lebanon or the Gaza Strip, "We will not be silent and we will support justice by all means available to us."

The prime minister understood what he was saying. "By all means available to us" implies Turkish military support for Hamas and Hizballah in fighting Israel. That doesn't mean, of course, that Turkey would send troops or even military supplies, but it is basically a declaration that includes both possibilities. Erdoğan didn't even restrict himself to cases when the terrorist groups he favors would be acting defensively. If Hamas or Hizballah launch an attack on Israel and Israel retaliated, Erdogan has now bound Turkey to support the aggressors.

None of this is accidental. Erdoğan is indeed impulsive but he knew what he was saying. And he also knew that the United States would do nothing against him as a result of this statement, nor would the Europeans. Still, how is threatening to join a war against Israel going to advance Turkish membership in the European Union?

To leave nothing to doubt, a Turkish newspaper interviewed two pro-Hizballah people who were enthusiastic in agreeing with the above analysis. One said, “Turkey is moving closer to the so-called ‘resistance axis.’ [The Iran-led bloc that includes Syria, the Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, and Hizballah.] It is edging toward a definitively anti-Israeli stance.”

Another added, “What struck me about Ahmadinejad's visit was that he was sounding more like Erdoğan.”

Might it be a matter of concern when a NATO ally offers to go to war, or at least fully to the aid, of two terrorist groups and Iran? Could urgent action be required when a U.S. ally sounds like a revolutionary Islamist country that is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, covertly helps kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, calls for Israel's extinction, and is reaching toward getting nuclear weapons?

Nero, according to the legend, celebrated Rome's burning by playing on his fiddle. Obama doesn't even notice that the U.S. position in the Middle East is being incinerated.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Let's intensively search fifteen million people not just at random but--even worse--using silly profiling guidelines that misdirect our focus in the hope of finding one or two terrorists a year who, if they exist at all, are using innovative tactics that will get by our procedures.

If this approach could be justified by protecting people's lives then it could be acceptable. But it isn't.

And the moment someone says they do not support profiling on the basis of what categories might be more likely to be terrorists--on anything other than the grounds that it is not legal under existing law--they have absolutely nothing worthwhile to say about counterterrorism. Any policies based on anything other than profiling who is going to be a likely terrorist, in regard to who is actually committing terrorism, endanger the safety, privacy, and pocketbooks of everyone they are supposed to be protecting.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Please be subscriber 17,925 (and daily reader 19,925.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

Security checks at American airports have become the most controversial topic in the United States. This debate is so full of mistaken assumptions and misleading ideas that it is hard to know where to start in analyzing it.

Basically, it can be described as follows: Let's intensively search fifteen million at random--worse, using silly profiling guidelines--in hope of finding one or two terrorists who, if they exist at all, are almost certainly using an innovative tactic that will get by our procedures.

Let’s consider the terrorist threat within the United States. The opening point must be that the threat of terrorism on airplanes within the United States is very low in frequency. That doesn’t mean a successful attack might not be horrendous, but that the number of attacks the terrorists can mount is going to be small.

Ask yourself this question: How many terrorists will try this year to get on board internal U.S. plane flights? The answer might be zero and it is almost certainly lower than five.

Why is this? It is hard to mount a sophisticated attack from within the United States in the post-September 11 period. The number of people ready to be suicide terrorists in this manner is limited in the U.S. population, as is the number of good bomb-makers. Terrorists also have many other targets and, indeed, the greatest danger is an individual attack using simple technology on very easy targets, as happened at Fort Hood and on many other occasions.

The goal of U.S. internal airport security, then, is to be so impressive that it scares off terrorists, to catch any terrorists who are trying to board, and to persuade the citizenry that the situation is well in hand and that the experts know what they are doing.

Yet here’s the reality. At a railroad station in California, one of my colleagues was asked by a security screener to show his driver’s license. He started laughing and asked, “Why?”

The guard said back sarcastically, “Haven’t you heard of September 11?”

But that’s why my colleague was laughing. All of the September 11 hijackers did have valid drivers’ licenses. And a terrorist who is going to blow up something can easily get a phony driver’s license. Thus, asking for such a document makes the guard (and the public) feel better but it is utterly worthless.

No doubt, the U.S. government will claim that it has achieved the goal of keeping terrorists out of airports. But this is misleading. The TSA has literally never caught a terrorist at an airport. And why go through an airport nowadays with any reasonable level of security when you can look for relatively unguarded targets? That’s what terrorists do.

What is the strategy of a smart warrior? Get his enemy to send all of his troops to guard someplace and then hit at a weak point somewhere else.

For good reason, then, the terrorists have moved to other methods and targets. Attackers have boarded planes outside the United States and put bombs on cargo planes.

As an experienced counterterrorism expert put it: "If our national security professionals bothered to read the recent Al-Qaida strategic publications they would see that the shift in Al-Qaida strategy makes most of this security theater worthless. Will the terrorists take another shot at a plane full of Americans at some point? Probably, but just like last year the threat for the next period will come from an inbound foreign flight."

If the terrorists have shifted their priorities why should the budget, personnel, stringency of an abandoned tactic be continually intensified?

In short, this massive security force and procedure is costing hundreds of millions of dollars and harassing tens of millions of passengers in a futile attempt to locate possibly one or two terrorists a year.

One terrorist puts a bomb in his shoes that doesn't work. Forever after, all shoes must be checked for millions of people? Terrorists plan an aborted attack using a gel. Forever after all liquids and gels must be banned and thus seized from millions of people?

When dealing with counterterrorism, resources will always be limited. If huge resources are thrown away on low-quality, ineffective, and misdirected tasks that means less attention can be paid to the real threats.

That’s why the Underpants Bomber and the Shoe Bomber and also the Times Square Bomber, and yes even the Fort Hood shooter, and others were not caught by the security system. It was too busy paying for people to pat down or x-ray Americans randomly.

People in authority don’t want to admit this because if there ever is a successful attack on a plane they don’t want to be quoted as having been wrong. But read that paragraph above, it’s the truth.

Indeed, the response is: If we don't have this strong security what will happen if a plane blows up? Everyone will ask who let this through. Prediction: The next time there's a real threat or--may it not happen--a plane blows up the investigation will discover that the current system wouldn't have stopped it. That's not speculation: it's what has happened every time before.

Checking passengers is about the passengers themselves. If the system doesn’t do one kind of (effective) profiling it does another (silly profiling). I used to be stopped in the United States for special inspection every single time. Why? Because I was loyal to my Jerusalem travel agent, who arranged my flights. Buying a ticket outside the United States was profiled as likely to be a terrorist. So in the “dangerous” line I was usually behind the Chinese grandmother.

There are other such profiling rules like watching someone carefully if they buy a one-way ticket (knowing things like this, terrorists can afford to buy round-trip and lose their money posthumously on the second ticket), having a relatively new passport, and so on. Profiling, then, goes on but it is just the wrong kind of profiling. What is the right kind? Well, step one is to look at non-citizens who come from certain countries.

It is no exaggeration to say that the great majority of the TSA system is a waste of time, checking documented American citizens who have no motive for commiting terrorism. Put them through the metal-detecting portal, have them put their possessions on the belt that goes through the X-rated x-ray machine. That's enough.

Here's another counterterrorist truth:

Any security system that isn’t completely stupid—and likely to be ineffective--must put the bulk of its resources into looking at those most likely to carry out an attack.

This is not “racial” profiling since these people don’t constitute a race and aren’t being profiled because of their race any more than examining Germans in the United States during World War Two was a racial issue or looking most carefully at people from Communist states during the Cold War was racism. Yes, the Islamists will try to disguise themselves but that’s not so easy for them, though using Western converts is sometimes an alternative.

Does this inconvenience people who may seem to be Muslims, Middle Easterners, excessively nervous, not being able to account for themselves in a logical fashion, or having something suspicious in their bags? Sure it does. But does it contribute to the safety of the passengers to ignore all of these points and inconvenience one hundred times more people? Whether or not this accords with U.S. law is not my department. If it's impossible, or wont happen for political reasons, at least have no doubt that this is the right way--and the safer way--to do things.

Rather than change and improve its methods, one trick used by the U.S. government is to reclassify certain attacks as not terrorism at all. For once the government admits that the problem derives from revolutionary Islamism, an ideology whose constituency has certain characteristics, it becomes much harder to line up everybody for potential pat-downs and x-ray machines which, by the way, don't even detect plastic explosives but only metal, thus further reducing their value.

If I could use the specific, detailed examples given to me by friends involved in U.S. counterterrorism efforts about what's going on behind the scenes you would be shocked at how bad the ruling experts are. They really believe that everyone is a threat and there's no sense singling out potential Islamist radicals as the most likely terrorists. Since the Fort Hood shootings, the U.S. army has made zero progress improving its understanding of the threat and is still denying that radical Islamic sentiments might have anything to do with such attacks.

Many government experts aren't just against profiling on moral or political grounds: they honestly think it is totally unnecessary and that random screening is better.

Here's another point related to this kind of official blindness: Counterterrorism should never be in the hands of a bureaucracy. That work requires people who are very flexible, think outside the box, and are not tied down by institutional interests. The larger the bureaucracy the more wasteful and inefficient it is…which leads us to the Department of Homeland Security.

What's needed is the kind of people who do special operations in the military, not those obsessed with forms and procedures. The latter are the kind of people who can say, after the Underpants Bomber got through the security and failed only because his bomb fizzled and the other passengers jumped him, that this proves the system worked.

If someone who thinks like that is in charge of protecting you, you are in serious trouble.
Critics of the existing system often cite Israel’s security procedures. The United States can learn a lot from these but, at the same time, there are also important differences. That’s another article.

But here’s the single most important and most easily adapted lesson:

Israel cannot afford the U.S. approach because it must have a system that really does stop terrorism, not just fool people into thinking everything's okay.

In contrast, the United States can afford a gigantic, expensive system that achieves almost nothing, since the level of terrorism on passenger planes leaving U.S. airports would remain the same even if the TSA and its toys were to be cut back by, say, three-quarters or more.

The exception on this issue, as I’ve indicated above, is that it is worthwhile to invest in a high-level of security for flights arriving from outside the United States. Yet here, too, the focus brought by realistic profiling is needed.

As we saw recently, the terrorists are now working on sending cheap bombs on international cargo flights, which have not been fully checked by security. Now there will be a billion-dollar defensive program in this area as well.

So is the TSA going to check each railroad, bus, airport, and highway around the clock on the chance of finding some terrorist passing through at the same time as an army officer who spoke openly of Jihad was ignored until he opened fire? Will there come a point where this all becomes too onerous, time-consuming, and expensive?

Perhaps the ultimate weapon of terrorists is not to blow up America but to bankrupt it.

Is a government and establishment proclaiming itself horrified at the idea of checking documents when someone has been stopped for due cause by a police officer—the Arizona law—to see if that person is an illegal alien going to authorize stopping and searching of any American citizen for much less of a reason?

Ultimately, the current airport security system is crazy not only because it is excessive in terms of inconvenience or violating privacy but perhaps most of all because it is a terrible way to guard against terrorism. Of course, the public can be propitiated by little changes and big promises. Countering the terrorists requires something much different.

Now if you want to read something terrific that shows the devastating failures of U.S. counterterrorism policy, check out Patrick Poole, "Failures of the U.S. Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat."

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Sometimes you have to wait until high-ranking officials leave office to find out how truly clueless they are. Such is the case with former National Security Advisor James Jones. Israel-Palestinian peace is easy to obtain, he explained in a lecture. Why? Because the Palestinians are willing to accept Israel gradually giving them all of the West Bank over the next ten years.

"I just think their cause would be dramatically enhanced by being a state to start with," said Jones. Yes, having a state would dramatically enhance their cause. But that equally was true in 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. The problem is the cause they want enhanced is wiping out Israel altogether.

Of course, it is always easy to persuade the other side to make peace when they are getting everything and giving up nothing. Indeed, Jones could also make many other such peace agreements:

Russia is willing to accept a gradual turnover of Central Europe over the next ten years.

Iran is willing to accept a gradual turnover of the Middle East over the next ten years.

North Korea is willing to accept a gradual turnover of South Korea over the next ten years.

What world problem couldn't be fixed this way? It doesn't matter whether the solution is stable, lasting, or serves U.S. interests. The only thing that matters is to get a deal! As Jones concludes,"Whatever it is, we have to find a solution to this; failure is not an option here."

Meanwhile there are little details like an official PA report saying that the Western Wall--the holiest site for Jews in the world--has nothing to do with Jewish history and should be part of Palestine. No doubt, though, [sarcasm] the Palestinian leadership would give Israel up to ten years to turn it over to them.

Please be subscriber 17,929 (and daily reader 19,929.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

Even when you say the right thing it can only highlight the fact that you haven’t been doing it. Take President Barack Obama’s statement on Lebanon. The wording is all correct, yet it only makes the fact that this has nothing to do with actual U.S. policy stand out even more vividly.

Thus, when Obama said that he is committed to keeping Lebanon free of “terrorism,” the fact is that—in part due to weak U.S. policy—the country is largely under the control of Hizballah, a terrorist group. Right now, Hizballah doesn’t have to make many terrorist attacks since it has already used terrorism successfully to gain veto power over state policy.

Obama’s statement was timed for Lebanon's Independence Day, but that is only all the more ironic because Lebanon has once again lost its independence to Iranian and Syrian control. The message was also prompted by growing tension over the special tribunal investigation into the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005.

Pretty much everyone in Lebanon knows the Syrians killed Hariri and it seems increasingly demonstrated by the tribunal investigation that Hizballah was involved. But what a hollow joke it is to speak of this when the Syrians and Hizballah hold such overwhelming power as to intimidate anyone else in Lebanon from doing anything about it.

Probably, even if the tribunal issued a report saying that Syria and Hizballah were guilty, Hariri’s own son—Said, leader of the Sunni Muslims and the Sunni-Christian moderate alliance—would denounce it as false. That’s tragic and one major reason why he would have to defend his own father’s murderers is that he knows he cannot rely on the United States.

"I am committed to doing everything I can,” said Obama, “to support Lebanon and ensure it remains free from foreign interference, terrorism, and war."

--Why, then, has not the U.S. government broken off its engagement with Syria—which has been leading nowhere—to protest Syria’s growing interference in Lebanon (not to mention involvement in killing American soldiers in Iraq and other misdeeds)?

--Why doesn’t he mention the U.S. pledges in 2006 to support a strong UN force capable of keeping Hizballah out of the south, stopping arms smuggling, and even helping the Lebanese government disarm that militia? Obama has not lifted a finger to get tough on these issues. He has stood by and watched while the UN force has been intimidated into passivity by Hizballah. In a real sense, Hizballah took on the entire world, supposedly under U.S. leadership, and won total victory.

-- Syria and Iran have given their side lavish financial and military support. They have helped commit acts of violence to intimidate those favoring a sovereign and independent Lebanon. Where is the U.S. counter-effort, including covert operations and behind-the-scenes funding? The Saudis—not Obama--tried their best to fight the radical Islamist axis without help from Obama.

And so, Obama has not done “everything I can,” he has done almost nothing at all. The moderates tremble and the radicals rejoice at this fact. Is there anyone in Lebanon, or even the Middle East, who doesn’t know this?

And then there’s this statement which in theory sounds good but is actually a disaster:

"The only way ahead is for all Lebanese to work together, not against each other, for a sovereign and independent Lebanon that enjoys both justice and stability."

To preach about how everyone should work together at this point means reinforcing the status quo which is what’s making a sovereign and independent Lebanon impossible. Only if the United States had given the Sunni-Christian-Druze alliance had stood up to Hizballah and not worked together in a national unity government would there have been hope. Obama will get his wish: everyone will work together to avoid challenging the new order dominated by Iran, Syria, and Hizballah.

The Druze saw the writing on the wall and dropped out of the anti-Hizballah alliance some months ago. Their leader went from praising America and damning Syria, to praising Syria and damning America because he had no faith in Obama backing his people and keeping him alive in the face of the other side’s terrorism. His allies caved in also. Can you blame them?

You can practically hear the dictators sneer in Damascus, Tehran, and the terrorists chime in at Hizballah headquarters:

Ha! You are isolated. No one cares. No one will help you. Do you think America and Obama are going to come to your rescue? We will kill you and your families without the United States doing anything. Surrender or else!

And so they did.

Thus, it sounds a bit disgusting to hear Obama opine: "Lebanon and its children need a future where they can fulfill their dreams free of fear and intimidation."

Sad to say, they aren’t going to get it with your policy.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Please be subscriber 17,928 (and daily reader 19,928). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

If anyone tells you that the United States is a nest of Islamophobia and that's a huge problem that must be atoned for by all sorts of measures, just give them the official FBI hate crime statistics. The numbers are now out for 2009 and can be seen here.

The number of antisemitic attacks on Jews in America is almost nine times higher than there are attacks against Muslims.

From 2008 to 2009 the number of anti-Muslim attacks rose by one percent. During the same time period, the number of attacks on Jews went up by six percent, an increase six times greater.

So despite thousands of terrorist attacks, the arrests of would-be Islamist terrorists, the killings of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan by Islamist radicals, America has proved remarkably immune from actively hating or trying to hurt Muslims in the country.

In the main chart, the number of religious attacks is given as 1,303. Of these, 931 were against Jews and 107 against Muslims. Of the remainder, 51 were against Catholics, 38 against Protestants, 109 were against other religions, 57 against more than one religion, and 10 against atheists or agnostics. That "other religions" category is confusing. If that means Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists face as many attacks as do Muslims that would suggest a very big problem that isn't being addressed.

Note however that in proportional terms a Jew is two to three times more likely to suffer some kind of hate crime than an African-American. The difference is that the overall intensity of individual incidents against African-Americans is more severe but this statistic still gives a sense of the situation. (Note)

Here's what's interesting.

Which mass media outlets will report how much the numbers differ from the perceptions that many of them have worked so hard to promote?

How many mainstream publications will carefully avoid pointing out who the real main victims of hate crimes are in today's America? Note how many mass media outlets cover this story while avoiding the facts laid out above.

Is anyone going to do some soul-searching or change their behavior regarding the bashing of Jews and Israel, especially on campuses?

Will people in academia, media, and government sing the praises of America as a remarkably tolerant society when it comes to religion?

UPDATE: I am told that the CNN coverage explained none of the above points, focused on hate crimes against homosexuals, and blamed an upsurge in "fundamentalist" Christianity for these attacks.

[Note: African-Americans are roughly four to six times more numerous in the American population but suffer only a bit more than twice as many hate crimes.]

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Please be subscriber 17,925 (and daily reader 19,925.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

Letters I receive from readers mainly focus on asking me what I think about the U.S.-Israel-PA negotiations about getting back to...negotiations. What is my view of this big deal that's being discussed for a three-month freeze on Israeli construction?

My response has been that until we have a clear, authoritative, and detailed description of what's being asked and offered, there's no sense in analyzing it.

Yet something very strange is going on. Before November, I pointed out that the urgent U.S. demand for a two-month freeze was a desperate attempt by the Obama Administration to be able to claim some diplomatic victory before what looked beforehand (and proved to be) a disastrous election. After all, what other possible explanation could there be for giving a lot to get Israel to stop building any apartments in the West Bank for eight weeks? There was no conceivable diplomatic payoff in terms of U.S. national interests or Middle Eastern peacekeeping to justify such a move.

So what can one say of offering even more after the election for a twelve-week-long freeze?

All of the answers are seemingly ridiculous, though that doesn't make them any the less possible.

First, the administration may have become so obsessed with getting a freeze and restarting negotiations, as an end to themselves though in part for reasons of prestige, that they have lost all proportion in this regard. If this is true--and given the administration's past record it might be true--the current U.S. government is incompetent.

Second, the administration may actually believe that if it can only get the two sides back to the table the impetus toward peace is so great that a couple of meetings will set off lightbulbs in the heads of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that say: Hey, this is easy! What have we been waiting for! Let's make peace! If this is the true factor in administration thinking, the current U.S. government is incompetent.

American presidents don't spend vast resources in order to look good on Monday when the same matter will make them look stupid on Thursday. Yet this has happened with President Barack Obama, notably in his September 2009 announcement that there would be some new high-level, intensive Camp David talks eight weeks later when no such outcome was likely. Whether such behavior is due to arrogance, ideological blindness, or some other factor isn't important.

There is a third possibility, however, that should be added. A lot of my readers will favor this one but I think it is the least likely. Despite rumors and speculation that the administration is making various demands for huge concessions on Israel. But if that were true the Israeli government would not be seriously considering the deal and there would be multiple leaks from officials opposing any such arrangement.

In this scenario, the Obama Administration may decide to try to impose some kind of solution on both sides. There are two potential variations on this theme. One would be trying to get the declaration of a Palestinian state without boundaries; the other would be to try to impose a comprehensive solution.

If this is the goal guiding administration thinking, the current U.S. government is incompetent, stupid, and dangerous. The most likely outcome of this scenario is that the administration will fall on its face very badly. The other is that it would significantly damage the regional strategic balance, promote instability, and create a disaster for U.S. interests.

All of the details and leaks, however, seem to point to the first two scenarios as being most likely. It is hard to be too specific since we don't know all the details but here's an example. Consider the issue of whether Jerusalem would be included in the freeze. If the U.S. government insists on including it, Israel's government probably wouldn't agree but if Washington doesn't so insist the PA will use this as a pretext not to talk.

Or suppose the United States and Israel do come to an agreement, it is likely that the PA would deliberately raise demands that were so high that the United States couldn't meet them. For, as I've been reporting for years, the key element here is that the PA doesn't want a deal, or at least not a deal that would make it impossible to launch a phase two campaign in future to eliminate Israel altogether.

Another element is that the U.S. government might present as a generous offer selling Israel things, like arms supplies to maintain Israel's military superiority, that have been taken for granted in the past relationship. This is no great deal but a significant retreat from the relationship as it has functioned for decades.

What is most likely to happen is this: the United States will give various gifts to both sides and the talks either will not be renewed (for a long time) and if they are will quickly fail. Since everybody should already know this then why all the diplomatic frenzy?

It's better to learn the lesson: there isn't going to be any Israel-Palestinian peace or dramatic progress for years. Policy should be adjusted accordingly to maximize stability, minimize violence, and do the best possible job of promoting U.S. interests in the region on all of the vital issues of today.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

A major Iranian site points out, as I had noted, that deputy minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Muhammad Ali Ramin had links to neo-Nazi groups when he lived in Europe and approved of their ideas. He then returned to Iran where he launched the government's official denial that the Holocaust ever happened. Ramin is also considered to be responsible for the new site extolling the Third Reich, since the site says it is under the supervision of his ministry.

After being criticized for antisemitism, the regime's institution cynically urged that the word "Zionist" be used rather than "Jew," a perfect example of how a lot of the pretense that hatred is merely anti-Israel is a veneer to hide the real standpoint being presented.

The new report on this story comes from the UAE-based al-Arabiya network which is more moderate than its rival, Qatar-based al-Jazira network. It can also be attributed to the fear of a more powerful Iran armed with nuclear weapons on the part of Gulf Arabs and their governments.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Please be subscriber 17,910 (and daily reader 19,910.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

At a time when antisemitism is at the highest point in the West and the world generally since 1945, the battle against it faces a terrible obstacle.

To a very large extent, the driving force of this hatred is revolutionary Islamism, whether it be in the form of attitudes promoted by many Muslim immigrants to the West, or from anti-Israel propaganda generated by Islamist groups and their (usually) leftist allies in the West (directly or indirectly), or from Iran or Arabic-language media in the Middle East.

The information in the above paragraph should not be surprising. Yet large sectors of Western society are in denial about these realities. To speak of it would require them to do something. Criticism of the left can be portrayed as right-wing. Criticism of powerful sectors in academia, media, and intellectual life can be costly to one’s career. Criticism of insane slanders of Israel can be portrayed as cynically branding all criticism of Israel as antisemitic. And criticism of radical Islamists can be portrayed as some kind of “racist” bigotry.

I wrote “can be portrayed” but, of course, the correct phrase should be: is so portrayed on a daily basis.

Nobody wants to be portrayed as racist or bigoted; most people in academia, media, and intellectual life view being called “right-wing” as an equally horrifying assault; and the kind of people who could fight this battle are usually also engaged in building their careers.

And, of course, that is the goal of the anti-Israel often anti-Jewish strategy that creates such responses to silence correction, complaint, or criticism.

Part of the problem also lies with Jewish history and attitudes that make it hard to acknowledge that the leading cause of antisemitism and main danger to the Jewish people today is not neo-Nazis and Skinheads but comes from revolutionary Islamism and the far left. Fascism is no longer a powerful political ideology; the Russian czar fell a long time ago. It is time to acknowledge the environment of the twenty-first century rather than being obsessed with the previous ones.

An example of this kind of problem is demonstrated by the behavior of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which is (supposed to be) the main defense organization fighting antisemitism in the United States and the world. Recently, ADL head Abe Foxman found the time to bash controversial television and radio commentator Glenn Beck for what was in fact a carefully worded, perfectly unobjectionable account of George Soros. Soros is funder of many anti-Israel groups and has contributed to the current problems described above.

But Beck is a safe target, albeit a totally innocent one when it comes to antisemitism. Many American Jews, who are overwhelmingly liberal, are suspicious of him because he is conservative although he is outspokenly pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. That combination of characteristics is rather common in the changed atmosphere of the current era.

Where, however, is the ADL when it comes to Islamist hatred of Jews? Well, pretty much nowhere. This is made apparent in a new study, “An Analysis of the Anti-Defamation League’s Press Release Archive as a Measure of the Organization’s Priorities,” by Eliyahu ben Avraam. I know the researchers and consider them to be very accurate, conscientious, and—by the way—liberal.

Of 3841 ADL press releases produced over the last 15 years, only `1.4 percent focuses on Islamic extremism and 1.3 percent on Arab antisemitism (or hatred of Jews, if you prefer). Even given this limited scope, most of these were issued in the 1990s (almost half of these in 1996 alone) and less than a dozen have been produced in the nine years since September 11, 2001.

And what proportion of the releases has highlighted traditional, right-wing antisemitism from Nazis and Christian extremists? Answer: 43.5 percent.

About five percent have dealt with terrorism in all of its forms, both domestic and international so some of these also touched on Islamist groups.

Regarding materials on Israel and the Middle East, of 737 press releases issued, a total of three deal with Islamist-based material: Jan ’01: “ADL Calls on PA and Islamic Leaders to Condemn Perversion of Religious Symbols;”Apr ’01: “ADL denounces claim by Muslim leaders that Pokeman game is "Jewish Conspiracy;"” Nov ’01: “ADL Says Anti-Semitic and Anti-American Reports in Arab and Muslim Media "Foment Anger And Hate.")

This is at a time of rampant hatred for Jews being preached in sermons, written about in newspapers, purveyed by several governments, and motivating war and terrorism on Israel. Yet practically none of the ADL releasesdeal with Islamist ideology, according to the study.

Of course, this is not a question of the ADL alone. It is apparent, for example, that the European Union is desperate to avoid naming the real sources of antisemitism in its member states, going so are as suppressing one study that it had commissioned when that research came up with the “wrong” answer and pointed to Islamist extremism.

This statistical analysis of the ADLs activities is an accurate reflection of the fear of many Jewish institutions and the disinterest of all too many governmental and liberal or social democratic forces throughout the West really dealing with this issue except in the most vague, feel-good, and historically-oriented terms.

By the way, here are two little stories that signify the insanity loose, though both pertain to Western supporters of terrorist and Islamist groups--the most insidious danger--rather than Islamism directly.

In the first, Dutch newspapers (reminiscent of the blood libel carried by a top Swedish newspaper not long ago) gave uncritical publicity to an interview with a Dutch filmmaker claiming he personally witnessed former Israeli Prime Minister shoot and kill two Palestinian children in Lebanon. Sharon was hundreds of miles away at the time and internal contradictions--none of them pointed out in the original stories--showed the accusation was nonsense. Perhaps the claim was inspired by the award given to a British newspaper cartoon showing Sharon eating Palestinian children.

Meanwhile, in Canada, a rabbi who merely wrote a letter to the president of York University complaining about an invitation to speak being given to George Galloway, a former recipient of Saddam Hussein's largesse who is an outspoken supporter of Hamas, among other things, the university president threatened to file a criminal complaint against the rabbi. The university administration has never done such things on past occasions when, for example, Natan Sharansky's talk on campus was disrupted.

These two incidents don't go to the direct actions and propaganda by revolutionary Islamist groups, but they are the kind of spin-off happening that is spreading antisemitism, supporting terrorist groups, and undermining Western democracy.

If you don't talk about the real sources of this new antisemitism, action against it is impossible and the problem will only grow bigger and bloodier. And since the same forces that target the Jews also are working to destroy Western interests and Western democracy that's everybody's problem.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Please be subscriber 17,898 (and daily reader 19,898.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

Is Iran’s government sponsoring an Internet site that extols the German Nazis, their history and achievements, including the antisemitism that the current Iranian regime also supports? Or is it merely permitting one to operate in its highly censored communications' system?

Here are the facts. There is a discussion group site entitled IranNazi that has an Iranian internet URL. It is written in Persian and seems to have begun on August 24. All the material on the site is pro-Nazi and features pictures of Adolph Hitler, the swastika, and goose-stepping German soldiers. There is an English-language part as well.

This site pretends to be an association for the research of Nazism and to be "completely historical and scientific."

کاملا پژوهشی و علمی تاریخی است

It includes such topics as claims that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the well-known antisemitic forgery is true; insistence that the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis ever happened and is in fact a lie; makes the prediction that Israel will collapse in five years; and highlights cartoons and satire ridiculing the Holocaust. All four of these positions are also taken by the Iranian government and official media.

In English it means: "This website is under Islamic Republic of Iran laws and it is under the supervision of the working committee on Digital Media of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance."

The site is registered to this place under the IRNIC, Iran's domain manager and an arm of the government. It is owned by a company in Isfahan. There is also evidence, however, that the site goes through a server in Arizona. The Phoenix hosting company is called Atjeu.com. This doesn't prove, however, that the site is not sponsored by the Iranian government. It does go out on the state-controlled server and is allowed to claim government sponsorship.

Iran does not have freedom of speech and certainly not freedom of the Internet. Given the tight censorship in Iran and the fact that all sites are closely monitored, permission to publish--especially to claim government sponsorship--is evidence of state backing.

So is this, then, a state-backed site, showing just how far the regime has gone in boosting Nazism historically and antisemitism or a private initiative by some Iranian immigrants in the United States who are supporters of the Iranian regime? Is the statement on the site, which has not been suppressed by the government, accurate? It isn't completely clear.

A very well-informed and highly credible Iranian notes that the fact that it isn't blocked "is a significant indication that the government at least does not have problem with it." The deputy minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance is Muhammad Ali Ramin, who was President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's advisor on Holocaust issue and founder of Holocaust Institute in Tehran and the president of the conference of Holocaust; A Global Perspective, which denied that the mass murder of Jews never took place.

A reader asked me whether anyone would be surprised to see something like this happen.

Obviously, one more Internet site doesn't prove anything huge. Yet the fact that it is in line with the Iranian government's public positions is a reminder of just what these stances are and what they signify.

Well, except for the explicit boosting of the German Nazi regime itself--rather than just denying its crimes and basically endorsing its policies--this is not really different from the regime's positions. It is shocking, but more on a symbolic than a substantive level. If this is a private group lying about its sponsorship that point should be made clear, but it still reminds us of what the current Iranian regime is saying...and doing.

My broader answer is that while many observers won't be surprised, given the regime's hatred of Jews as well as of Israel, the national home of the Jewish people, there are others who will be genuinely shocked.

The conventional wisdom in many quarters that Iran's regime is a rational government that looks only to its national self-interest. There is something to be said for this view. We have seen times when Iran's rulers--some if not all--exercised caution and showed that the regime's survival was their highest priority. The decision to end the war with Iraq in 1988 and avoiding direct aggression or armed conflict with other neighbors provide examples.

On the other hand, Iran has been able to be more provocative without incurring armed conflict because the other side, including the United States, is so reluctant to counter its actions, including state sponsorship of terrorism and covert, indirect attacks on American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.Certainly, the answer is not to launch an armed attack on Iran. But the proper answer has been to exert sufficient threats, pressure, and support for Iran's foes to deter, contain, and frighten Iran into being more cautious.

The Iranian regime is a radical Islamist government, not a Nazi or fascist one, though there are points in common. But also as I've written elsewhere, Iran's government is the closest thing we've seen to an irrational, ideologically motivated ruler since the fall of Germany in 1945. There have been other such rulers--Idi Amin in Uganda, the Cambodian Communists, the Afghan Taliban come to mind. But we have seen how these regimes have behaved and how many people they've murdered.

And none of those others, including Nazi Germany itself, had nuclear weapons.

Update: This story, first reported here, has now become a controversial issue within Iran.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Please be subscriber 17,898 (and daily reader 19,898.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

General Sir David Richards, commander of the British military and former NATO commander in Afghanistan, gave an interview to the Sunday Telegraph that is extremely important and easily misunderstand. The headline statement has been Richards’ remark that a military victory against al-Qa'ida and the Taliban is not possible.

Many have seen this quote is one more example of a disturbing trend in which the West lacks the willingness to attain victory, the patience and staying power to fight the revolutionary Islamist threat whose very existence is denied by all too many. This is certainly a real issue and a reasonable concern but Richards isn’t joining that kind of thinking. If we listen to what he’s actually saying (and not saying) we can understand the situation better.

The great, secret weapon of these radical forces is a refusal to compromise or give up. No matter how long the battle goes on, how many are killed, or how their countries are wrecked, these extremists will go on fighting. This gives them two tremendous advantages:

--First, they can wear down (or think they are wearing down) their enemy in order to outlast him. The idea is to gain victory by getting the other, stronger side to give up because its people fear death, don’t want to pay the financial price of the conflict, or just lose interest.

--Second, they can play on internal defeatist forces inside the West. Just by making them kill your own people, wreck your buildings, and inflict suffering, the West can be made to feel so guilty as to abandon the struggle.

There are many in Western political, intellectual, and media circles who advocate appeasement, concessions, and even surrender. But this does not seem to be what Richards is saying.

According to his interview, Richards does view the battle with revolutionary Islamism as a necessarily protracted struggle. His estimate is that the battle will go on at least 30 years and he points out that military means alone cannot root out an idea.

Attempts by the West to achieve this were unnecessary, said Sir David Richards, the Chief of General Staff, who also defended the right of fundamentalist Muslims to adhere to beliefs which underpin their lives. He stressed that one cannot defeat ideas merely through fighting wars. Islamism, he avers, isn’t going to disappear, nor does he wish to challenge the right of “fundamentalist” Muslims to hold their beliefs.

Instead he puts forward a practical, functional definition of victory: contain the enemy, prevent it from attacking you. In his words:

“You can't [achieve victory through combat]. We've all said this–-[General] David Petraeus [the U.S. head of NATO forces in Afghanistan] has said this….In conventional war, defeat and victory is very clear cut and is symbolized by troops marching into another country's capital. First of all you have to ask, do we need to defeat it [Islamist militancy] in the sense of a clear-cut victory? I would argue that it is unnecessary and can never be achieved….

"I don't think you can probably defeat an idea. It's something we need to battle against as necessary, but in its milder forms why shouldn't they be allowed to have that sort of philosophy underpinning their lives?

"It's how it manifests itself that is the key and can we contain that manifestation – and quite clearly al-Qa'ida is an unacceptable manifestation of it."

I think a lot of what Richards says is reasonable though it also contains some dangerous implications. Richards is obviously not advocating retreat since he says that the NATO operation in Afghanistan has been largely successful and opposes withdrawing in the near future. The problem, rather, is that he is (understandably) focusing on his job of being a British general and fighting wars.

Before continuing, however, it is necessary to point out a potential disaster expressed in Richards’ words that reflects serious errors in Western thinking. If the West focuses only or overwhelmingly just on blocking attacks against itself in the short-run that will lead to more attacks in the long-run.

The idea that the revolutionary movement's main front should be launching terrorist attacks on the West is an al-Qaida strategy, not one of the revolutionary Islamists generally. This fact means that Western military and intelligence forces are engaged in fighting al-Qaida. But al-Qaida is not the main strategic threat. It didn't take over Iran, the Gaza Strip, or large parts of Lebanon. Al-Qaida didn't wage civil war in Algeria or Egypt. The main strategic threat is not scattered terrorist attacks but a political transformation of the Middle East, countries with huge territories, tens of millions of people, and billions of dollars in resources, all of which can be used to spark a lot of future wars and attacks.

Consequently, if the top Western priority is preventing attacks on itself, the second top priority should be keeping Islamists from taking over other countries and using them as bases for further expansion. When Islamists take over somewhere—as in Turkey or the Gaza Strip—it invigorates that ideology, gives it additional financing and safe havens, and inspires many thousands to join their ranks. Coddling Syria, partner in the biggest Islamist alliance, has the same effect.

All non-conventional wars against irregular forces that are fighting for an idea have their special problems. In 1945, many leaders in the Allies doubted that capturing Berlin or taking Tokyo would wipe out Nazism or Japanese warrior fanaticism. In fact, though, this was achieved because those ideas were seen to be disastrous and costly failures.

The Middle East’s modern history is not so different from this kind of pattern than people seem to think. True, some basic concepts—expelling Western influence, destroying Israel, finding some miracle solution to become wealthy and powerful overnight—did remain over decades.

Yet the specific programs that were building mass movements and inspiring hundreds of attacks were discredited. These discredited ideas include: Nasserism in the 1950s-1970s era; Ba’thism as a regional movement; Marxism; Cuban-style guerrilla warfare; the belief in Saddam Hussein as messiah; the belief in quick upheavals after Iran’s revolution; and faith in Usama bin Ladin as messiah. Each time an idea was defeated, some years of relative quiet went by and the scope of the problem was often reduced.

To prove a movement and ideas has failed, the first step is to ensure that it doesn’t win a quick and easy victory. The second step is to defeat it soundly and throw it out of power where possible, as did happen in Afghanistan. In other places, though, the West did the opposite, for example, saving the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip.

The third step is to root out the movement in a serious manner. The West doesn’t have the stomach to do the dirty work that would be necessary to succeed here. And given the fact that the present-day problem is within the framework of Islam, it is probably impossible and certainly undesirable for them to do this.

So who can do it? Answer: Other Muslims who have a vested interest in doing so. The Saudi, Algerian, and Egyptian regimes, with all their shortcomings, have been willing to fight in this manner.

The Palestinian Authority has been too weak to do so and too eager to use the Islamists for its own purposes against Israel. The Lebanese government has been too weak while lacking Western support and facing an enemy which enjoys full Iranian-Syrian backing. In Afghanistan, the government—partly due to its sensing Western faintheartedness—also seems inclined to try to make a deal with the Taliban.

The final stage is an ideological assault on the enemy ideology. But given the “infidel” nature of the West, its ignorance about Islam (albeit an ignorance that is the exact opposite of what it is usually accused of holding), and refusal to acknowledge how Jihadism and revolutionary Islamism are deeply rooted in the texture of Islam, this also can only be accomplished by other Muslims.

The real moderate reformers are too weak; Muslim phony moderates and apologists for the radicals try to hide the truth. That leaves governments in Muslim-majority countries, some of which—as noted above—are incapable of tough action. Moreover, even the strongest Muslim-majority country regimes seek to use this weapon against their own enemies, and thus keep it alive.

At least, however, the West can understand the nature of the enemy and the basis of its appeal. And it must understand that radical Islamic views and practices on its own soil are likely to lead to revolutionary Islamist movements.

Richards is saying that the Taliban, al-Qaida, and revolutionary Islamists aren’t going to be dissolved into nothingness by Western military action. That’s true. But there are other ways of attaining victory.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.